How did the Labor Aristocracy die out?

Che Burashka wrote:

Redkuze, you've talked several times of a Mexicano Nation in the USA. What is that? Mexicans? or you mean the mexicanos, the nahuatl people. They don't live in the USA, but in central Mexico.

By Mexicano people I mean people who are from the land that was Mexico before the Mexican-amerikan war. That includes what is now the Southwest U$. California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas . Nahuatl would certainly count as Mexicano, as would Chicanos in the U$. Does that help?

Potemkin wrote:

You mean the same Lin Biao who tried to overthrow Chairman Mao in a coup d'etat in 1971 and whose plane crashed while he was trying to flee to the Soviet Union, killing everyone on board? That Lin Biao?

There is no solid evidence to support the "police narrative," about Lin's attmepted "coup." But that is a debate for another thread. Read Prairie Fires comment on it at this link to learn more.

But to answer your question, whether or not Lin plotted to overthrow Mao is beside the point. Communists should follow the superior line, and that was contained in Comrade Lins Long Live the Victory of Peoples War.

gRed Britain wrote:

I'm sure blue collar workers in China earn more than blue collar workers in parts of Africa. That doesn't make the Chinese workers part of a labour aristocracy though.

Chinese workers do probably make more than workers in Africa, but the difference in these wages is miniscule compared to the difference they have with 1st world workers. Also the incredibly low wages Chinese and Africans make, makes them ready to accept revolution as a solution. So you are right, the Chinese do not constitute a labour aristocracy.

gRed Britain wrote:

I'm sorry but this is never going to happen, let alone work. Try convincing 5 billion people who spend all their lives working just to make ends meet that they should risk their lives helping to attack the most military powerful nations on earth and they will laugh in your face.

I think the Hezzbollah would disagree, they militarily defeated I$rael in 2006. I think Hamas would also disagree, they held out against the same army for almost a month. As would the Vietnamese, Angolans, Algerians, Cubans, Chinese, etc. These are all groups and nations that fought and defeated far superior imperialist armies. Why? Simply put they "wanted it" more.

As Comrade Lin says in Long Live the Victory of Peoples War: "The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is far more powerful than the physical atom bomb."

gRed Britain wrote:

You also say that a new Chinese revolution would cripple the US economy. You do know how much the Chinese economy is tied up with the US economy right?

That is why it is a weak link in the chain of imperialism.

gRed Britain wrote:

China is an export-driven economy and since the US is its biggest export market it would be ripping the heart out of its own economy in the process.

That is why it would require a Maoist-Third Worldist (or at the very least anti-imperialist) revolution. Further, I think a truly socialist regime in China could survive. They did it before, they can do it again. They could retool their economy and trade exclusively with other oppressed 3rd world nations, making both the Chinese, and the rest of the 3rd world stronger in the process.

gRed Britain wrote:

While the US would suffer a lot it still has other third world countries such as India to turn to in order to provide a cheap workforce.

This is also true. But then the U$ would have to deal with the anti-imperialists in India, including Maoist guerilla armies. If it moved to Africa, it would have to deal with the African anti-imperialist/proletarian forces, etc.

Peoples war can best be described as a war of attrition, in which the imperialists are slowly cut off from 3rd world resources and labour.

Quote:

There is no solid evidence to support the "police narrative," about Lin's attmepted "coup." But that is a debate for another thread. Read Prairie Fires comment on it at this link to learn more.

But to answer your question, whether or not Lin plotted to overthrow Mao is beside the point. Communists should follow the superior line, and that was contained in Comrade Lins Long Live the Victory of Peoples War.

Which was an essentially anti-Maoist line:

Quote:

Whereas, Lin Biao’s outlook tended to write-off the First World countries, Mao saw First Worlders, and the White “working class,” as allies. In fact, some Maoists in Shanghai saw the claim that Amerikan “workers” were no longer exploited as tantamount to capitulation.

and

Quote:

In February, 1969, Mao secretly set in motion overturning aspects of Lin Biao’s line later preserved and adopted by the Ninth Congress.... Mao’s alliance with the Adverse Current, once identified as the Liu-Deng headquarters in the Foreign Ministry, was not simply a move to counter Lin Biao’s growing power. It was an ideological alliance.

Maoism Third-Worldism is actually an anti-Maoist deviation.

Potemkin wrote:

Maoism Third-Worldism is actually an anti-Maoist deviation.

I would argue that Mao turned against Maoism. Or that Maoism was advancing and Mao did not keep up. Mao is not a god, every word that drops from his mouth is not true simply because he says it. Every action he takes is not correct simply because he does it. It is only true and correct when the facts back up the theory, that goes for every leader and individual.

Lin Biao was right on the non-revolutionary nature of the 1st world working class, Mao was wrong.

Then why call it 'Maoism Third-Worldism'? Why not simply call it 'Third-Worldism'? Or even 'Lin Biao Third-Worldism'?

Redkuze, you've just effectively denounced Chairman Mao as a reactionary. It's at moments like this that I realise why Mao decided he had to reign in the Cultural Revolution. Ultraleftists like Lin Biao and your equivalents in China at the time were getting out of hand and were becoming a threat to the safety of the state itself.

Agreed. I bet you supported changing of the stoplights from green meaning go to red meaning go and green meaning stop you evil capitalist pig! This isn't spam, but I just want to point out how far left that redkruze is, and how quick he is to condemn a reactionary unless the individual in question isn't as radical as he would have them be.

Potemkin wrote:

Redkuze, you've just effectively denounced Chairman Mao as a reactionary.

Maoist-Third Worldists do not denounce all the work of Mao because he moved to the right at the end of his life. Mao failed to take his own advice by forgetting class struggle. This does not take away from his previous contributions to revolutionary science.

Quote:

To claim that the entire American working class is a labour aristocracy is clearly wrong. However, there clearly is a (small) labour aristocracy in America and other developed capitalist societies. Globalisation will almost certainly destroy it in the near future through outsourcing of jobs and increased competition between the workers of the first and third worlds. This will either create an economy consisting almost entirely of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois (not labour aristocracy) elements, with the exploited proletariat outsourced into the third world, or it will create a vast army of unemployed workers in the first world who will be a destabilising force in the politics of the imperialist nations. The social democrats and neo-liberals who govern the first world nations clearly hope that it is the former possibility which will happen - you only have to listen to any of Gordon Brown's recent speeches to see this - but it is much more likely that it is the latter possibility which will transpire. In which case, the vastly expanded and intensely exploited proletariat of the third world will be joined by a vast discontented army of unemployed lumpen-proletarians in the first world. This could well fatally destabilise the entire global capitalist system.

I agree with this reasoning. It seems clear that a labour Aristocracy as heiss93 describes it does exist in First World nations. There are after all more classes than just the Working class and the Bourgeois. However, it certainly does not comprise the entire First World working class, not even a majority.

im sorry i dont wana change the subject but i noticed the guy soviet9123 something is it me or does everyone here think raul castro is a fool and is bringing down fidels succes

Quote:

im sorry i dont wana change the subject but i noticed the guy soviet9123 something is it me or does everyone here think raul castro is a fool and is bringing down fidels succes

If you'd like to comment on the Castro's without going off topic, you can take it to the Cuba forum.

Link:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewforum.php?f=132

ok just cus i saw a pic of raul in this discussion but thanks il check it out

Comrade Heiss93 Publishes usefully an extract from THE Soviet
dictionary definition of the labour aristocracy 1985. But, dictionaries are dead things .Quoting Lenin from nearly a hundred years ago merely reflected the economic and classes of that time and the dictionary the thinking and ideological viewpoint of the CPSU on classes in 1985 .That is to say ,cherry picking Trotskyite style ,a jack of clubs from the full hand of Lenin as trump card. Typically a Trotskyite too, will only portray these misleaders as a "narrow strata " and preferably as “Stalinist “bureaucrats , diverting an otherwise revolutionary working class from the world revolution, permanently due in europe and amerika anytime soon. But With that in mind their definition may be a useful starting guide to a theory for making concrete analysis of the world today. But the ideological question have to be separated from material interests. The really decisive factors in making class analysis.

So we are talking about a privileged sector of the working class having a material interest in exploitation that seeks to exercise hegemony over the entire working class by convincing the whole class with their ideology that they have a material interest in class collaboration. If that is the perceived and actual reality of the entire class they will go along with the misleaders for their long term interests. Thus is ,if the actual material interests of the whole class and the reflecting ideology of a labour aristocracy ,does not conflict with everyday logic or perceived short and long term class interests. These unexploited but perhaps oppressed by the system working people may perceive themselves as workers and an exploited working class and be encouraged by the Trotskyite ’left” to do so.

This relatively thin strata refers to the active and definitely organised ideological misleaders of the working class in political parties trade unions etc. The ideology of this sector of the working class reflected their long term perception of material reality , that as a privileged upper strata of the working class they materially benefited from colonialism and class collaboration with capital. Yet this” feature “characteristic of the imperialist era , not only in that strata. But , in the labour aristocracy was described elsewhere by Lenin as the ideological viewpoints accepted and acted on by whole working classes not simply the labour aristocracy ideologists a narrow strata lining up with "their" imperialists But a labour aristocracy lining up for their own imperialism wars for material interests. . See for example Lenins “The split in the international socialist movement".
But, we have to consider today whether this 'feature' of the bribing from Imperialist profits of whole classes has expanded with imperialism . To do that we have to investigate the actual international flows of surplus value. And whether or not the first world 'worker' is a wageworker actualy exploited and not simply oppressed by capital.